There are no national statistics about distance education retention and comple- tion rates. However, “anecdotal evidence and studies by individual institutions suggest that course-completion and program retention rates are generally lower in distance education courses than in their face-to-face counterparts” (Carr, 2000, p. 39). As seen in Table 3, even though the drop-out rates for Temple University distance education courses are slightly higher than other
Table 3: OLL Program Student Drop-Out Rate and Grades
Notes: 1. A 700 level section means that the course is offered online or via videoconferencing); 2. Course levels 0- 399 represent undergraduate courses; 3. Course levels above 400 represent graduate-level courses; 4. MG = missing grade; 5. NR = grade not reported; 6.W = withdrawal; 7.WF = withdrawal failing; 8.CR = credit; 9. NC = non-credit; 10. P = Pass; 11. R=Registered; 12. AU=Audit; and 13. G.P.A.= Grade Point Average.
Course
Level Section Level Students MG NR W WF CR NC P R AU GPA
0 - 199 Not 700 334507 4010 4398 16924 162 1857 235 2230 843 66 2.86 1.2% 1.3% 5.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 700 1281 37 27 94 3 1 0 0 1 0 3.14 2.9% 2.1% 7.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 200-399 Not 700 119013 1327 1001 3688 52 1930 698 2697 55 52 3.22 1.1% 0.8% 3.1% 0.0% 1.6% 0.6% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 700 1208 24 39 66 0 0 0 0 1 1 3.34 2.0% 3.2% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 400 and > Not 700 50158 1047 190 498 8 122 0 1707 4428 24 3.68 2.1% 0.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3.4% 8.8% 0.0% 700 1528 56 12 32 0 0 0 46 0 0 3.68 3.7% 0.8% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Temple courses, the distance education student grade-point average (GPA) is not significantly different from the GPAs of students taking traditional face-to- face courses (especially graduate-level courses).
Conclusion
As this chapter has attempted to illustrate, a formative evaluation plan can help guide a new distance education program or redefine the program’s aims and provide good feedback for future initiatives in the administrative, academic, faculty/ student services, or marketing areas. We reiterate Lau’s (2000) call for the need for institutional commitment to distance education initiatives and the need for adequate infrastructure as key factors contributing to the success of the initiatives; however, there is also a need to be aware of the impact of institutional culture on distance education initiatives.
Therefore, we suggest that a carefully designed distance education evaluation plan is also necessary to a program’s success. The information gained from such a plan helps program leaders gather feedback needed for the institution’s decision-makers to allocate the appropriate fiscal and infrastructure resources required to support it. In addition, we suggest that a distance education program must be responsible for providing an environment that fosters the enhancement of distance education students’ course completion rates. By increasing completion rates, a distance education program can help an institu- tion guarantee a more predictable subsequent fiscal budget (Parker, 1995). As technology evolves, the needs of distance education students change. A distance education program must have a communication link with all of its constituencies to keep them apprised of the various implementations that will obtain from these changes. A good distance education program evaluation plan should reflect not only the performance of its courses, students, and faculty members, but also should be able to impact the institution’s distance education policy and procedures. Most importantly, it should impact on the program’s efficiency in achieving its institution’s educational goals.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Karen Paulson (NCHEMS-National Center for Higher Education Management Systems) for her contribution to this chapter.
Endnotes
1 The University’s Teaching Learning Roundtable (TLT-R) was established
in 1994 to serve as an advisory committee to improve teaching and learning through the appropriate use of technology (see Internet Re- sources).
2 The TU-OLL Program had an initial goal of determining whether Temple
faculty would teach in a distance education environment. To that end, a Request for Proposals for courses to be developed or converted for distance delivery via online or videoconferencing was sent initially to all faculty across the university. To provide guidance to the TU-OLL staff for supporting proposals, a committee of faculty who were already involved in distance education was constituted to provide a peer review process. Each proposal was reviewed for the design of the distance course, appropriateness for distance delivery, and overall reality of the proposal (i.e., was the proposal realistic in concept?). Proposals were ranked by these criteria, and only those that were deemed of highest quality were forwarded for support. Support consisted of faculty release time and funding for technology and specialized software, as needed. Not all proposals were supported. After the first two years of this process, the process was limited to those proposals that demonstrated a department moving toward offering a sequence of courses — not random offerings.
3 According to WBT system’s website (http://www.wbtsystems.com/com-
pany), TopClass™ has an open architecture that allows you to integrate it with other applications.
4 Blackboard Inc. is a course management tool that provides online faculty
and students with an easy way of adding their course materials and assignments, in addition to providing online tools for synchronous (e.g.,
virtual classroom) and asynchronous (e.g., e-mail and discussion board) communication.
5 WebStudy Inc. is also a course management tool that provides similar
features to Blackboard. WebStudy Inc. also provides online professors with the ability to record voice messages either to explain the course materials posted or to provide students with personalized voice feedback on their assignments.
6 All Temple University videoconferencing rooms have PictureTel equip-
ment (two video monitors in front of the room, two video cameras, ceiling or table microphones, a Socrates podium with a VCR and document camera, and a monitor at the back of the room.
References
Belanger, F. & Jordan, D. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of
distance learning: Technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, PA:
Idea Group Publishing.
Berge, Z.L. (1998). Changing roles of teachers and learners are transforming the online classroom. Online_Ed, (August 30), Doc. N. 74. Retrieved from http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/online-ed.
Berge, Z.L. & Collins, M.P. (1995). Computer-mediated communication
and the online classroom. Volumes I, II, and III. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Calder, J. (1994). Programme evaluation and quality: A comprehensive
guide to setting up an evaluation system. London: Kogan Page.
Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39-A41. Dillon, C. (1989). Faculty rewards and instructional telecommunications: A
view from the telecourse faculty. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 35-43.
Dillon, C.L. & Walsh, S.M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 5-21.
Furst-Bowe, J. (2001). Identifying the needs of adult women in distance
learning programs. Retrieved from http://www.uwstout.edu/provost/
jfb/proposal.htm.
Gibson, C. (1998). Distance education in higher education: Institutional
responses for quality outcomes. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Lau, L. (2000). Distance learning technologies: Issues, trends and oppor-
tunities. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Monolescu, D. & Schifter, C. (1999). Online focus group: A tool to evaluate online students’ course experience. The Internet and Higher Educa-
tion, 2, 171-176.
Parker, A. (1995). Predicting dropout from distance education. In D. Seward (Ed.), One World Many Voices: Quality in Open and Distance Learn-
ing, (pp. 176-180). London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
Schifter, C. (2000a). Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education: A factor analysis. Education at a Distance, 13(1). Retrieved from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN00_Issue/Factors.htm. Schifter, C. (2000b). Compensation models in distance education. The
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(1). Retrieved
from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/schifter31.html.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching
and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.